Relationship of Connected and Separate Knowing to the Learning Styles of Kolb, Formal Reasoning, and Intelligence

Abstract

The present investigation examined the relationship between the Connected and Separate Knowing dimensions of the Knowing Styles Inventory [K. H. Knight, M. H. Elfenbein, and J. A. Messina (1994) “A Scale to Measure Connected and Separate Knowing: The Knowing Styles Inventory,” paper presented at the meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization, Rockport, ME; (1995) “A Preliminary Scale to Measure Connected and Separate Knowing: The Knowing Styles Inventory, Sex Roles, Vol. 33, pp. 499–513] and the Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization learning modes of D. A. Kolb [(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall], formal reasoning ability [B. Inhelder and J. Piaget (1958) The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence, New York: Basic Books; (1975) The Origin of the Idea of Chance in Children, New York: W. W. Norton; K. G. Tobin and W. Capie (1981) “The Development and Validation of a Group Test of Logical Thinking,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 41, pp. 413–423], and vocabulary and abstract thinking ability [W. C. Shipley, (1940) “A Self-Administering Scale for Measuring Intellectural Impairment and Deterioration,” Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 371–377], Study 1 (126 females, 117 males) found that males who were more connected were more likely to describe their learning style as emphasizing feeling rather than thinking (i.e., scored higher on Concrete Experience). Studies 2 (59 females, 39 males) and 3 (56 females, 58 males) found no relationship between Connected or Separate Knowing and formal reasoning and vocabulary or abstract thinking ability, respectively. Suggestions for future research were presented.